• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Revolution Thanksgiving 2006

Arsynic

Banned
OG_Original Gamer said:
Sadly your post may be true, but the Revolution won't mean much if can't garner enough support from the developer(publisher) community and gamer community.
I could care less. Face it, few next gen developers will create original content for the Revolution anyways. If they do sign on to the Rev, they will saturate it with ugly shovelware. Maybe Nintendo doesn't care. They're trying to take the industry in a new direction--perhaps the right direction.

Developers who care primarily about making lots of money should stick with the Xbox 360 or the PS3 [edited from "Revolution"]. Developers who care primarily about moving this industry forward will develop innovative new titles for the Revolution. Sadly, those developers are too few and far between.

If the Revolution fails, it's because gamers and the industry as a whole is content in its stagnation. We want Metal Gear Solid with better graphics and animation and a shinier version of Halo. Soon, that's all the industry will be: Metal Gear, Halo and Tony Hawk clones. Soon people will get tired of the same old shit and when there are no alternatives...well, you know the rest.

Is the industry ready for Revolution? Tony Hawk sales say no. Personally, I don't think so. I'm already sold, but then again, I don't base my console purchases on the size of the library or the latest NPD sales charts.
 

koam

Member
GitarooMan said:
This is a good point. However, what about people who wanted to play Nintendo franchises with "next-gen" visuals (I know that's subjective, but you know what I mean), they lose out, right?. Business wise there are plenty of justifications for Nintendo's direction, but personally as a long-time gamer I feel disappointed they won't bring us Mario and Zelda with some modern visuals. I know I'm not the target for the system, but I wonder if many on this board are the target and what the implications of that is.

I don't think that's an issue. You won't ever super realistic graphics in most Nintendo games. They're more cartoony so I think the Rev won't have problems for 1st party. The only major exceptions are Zelda and Metroid (possibly F-Zero). Super realistic graphics are mainly an issue for 3rd party games.
 

bigNman

Member
Three main things in console hardware. CPU, GPU and memory. IGN has a rough idea of the memory and no details on the other two so they still dont have a clue.
 

Xellotah

Member
SolidSnakex said:
Uggh, another "the industry is doomed without a Revolution" bit. Haven't people learned from spouting this shit generation after generation while the industry continues to get bigger?

No I think you got his post all wrong, it was a rhetorical question.. He's saying Nintendo is doomed, and he is listing his reasons why.
 

BlueTsunami

there is joy in sucking dick
I'm actually kind of annoyed that "Next Gen" is only considered to be a Graphics upgrade. Theres WAY much more to all this than just a new GPU.
 

elostyle

Never forget! I'm Dumb!
Arsynic said:
I could care less. Face it, few next gen developers will create original content for the Revolution anyways. If they do sign on to the Rev, they will saturate it with ugly shovelware. Maybe Nintendo doesn't care. They're trying to take the industry in a new direction--perhaps the right direction.

Developers who care primarily about making lots of money should stick with the Xbox 360 or the Revolution. Developers who care primarily about moving this industry forward will develop innovative new titles for the Revolution. Sadly, those developers are too few and far between.

If the Revolution fails, it's because gamers and the industry as a whole is content in its stagnation. We want Metal Gear Solid with better graphics and animation and a shinier version of Halo. Soon, that's all the industry will be: Metal Gear, Halo and Tony Hawk clones. Soon people will get tired of the same old shit and when there are no alternatives...well, you know the rest.

Is the industry ready for Revolution? Tony Hawk sales say no. Personally, I don't think so. I'm already sold, but then again, I don't base my console purchases on the size of the library or the latest NPD sales charts.
Actually, recent Tony Hawk sales say yes :)
 

Doc Holliday

SPOILER: Columbus finds America
What's worse is when you see the crap from the inside. Focus group tests and Marketing is what driving a lot the games made today :( One thing though, this is partly Nintendo's fault..show us games damn it! Despite what many think, I think the masses are lot more open to new gameplay experiences than us hardcore give them credit for. Nintendo just need to get these new ideas out there.
 
Arsynic said:
I think Ninty should keep the "Revolution" name. I mean, a next generation console with last generation technology...that's Revolutionary indeed. </sarcasm>

In an industry where Tony Hawk and Madden (the bastion of all that is wrong with this industry) still sell millions of copies, original games will fall by the wayside. Nintendo will learn this the hard way. Nintendo's vision is too good for the industry as it stands now. If I were Nintendo, I'd just wait for the inevitable industry crash to hit and then revitalize it.

This industry works like a forest. The big trees form a canopy over the forest that doesn't allow light to pass through and nurture the smaller foilage that the animals feed on. So they die. So the forest floor is left with dry, dead foilage that's no good for anyone. Then a lighting storm comes, strikes a tree and the whole forest burns down. This revitalizes the forest and allows for new growth. The foilage comes back, the animals feast and all is good until the trees get too large again and the whole cycle starts again.

We have a few big trees like EA, Ubi Soft, Activision, Square-Enix, Namco, Konami, et. al. that steal all of the sunlight from the smaller developers who make the most revolutionary stuff. However, if it's not Tony Hawk or Madden, it gets no advertising dollars and therefore no exposure and stays in the niche. However, the industry needs these new ideas to survive. However, these smaller devs are choked out and either close their doors or get on the cookie-cutter-shit bandwagon. Then the industry gets dry and stale and eventually collapses. That's going to happen soon, I don't know when, but soon. People are going to get sick of playing the same old shit over and over again.

Maybe Nintendo realizes this and Revolution could possibly ride out the eventual collapse of the industry and take it in a new direction. Fuck the establishment. Perhaps we're all dead fucking wrong. Perhaps it has nothing to do with better visuals, better sound or better physics. Perhaps it has everything to do with game mechanics and ideas. Perhaps its the way we think about games that need to change. Nintendo's vision is that the next generation has little to do with having better graphics. However, that's how our jaded asses have been programmed to think over the years. Shit, if a console doesn't have better graphics, better sound, and better physics then it's not "next gen" in our view. However, the shit that we fail to realize is that the thing that seperates games from music and movies is that we "PLAY" them. It's the interaction that distinguishes games from the other mediums. So why has graphics become the benchmark in a medium where GAMEPLAY is the unique identifier? Who knows. Graphics should be the benchmark for movies and sound should be a benchmark for music. How backwards have we become?

Do we judge a music album based on the music video? Hell no, that doesn't make sense since it's the SOUND that matters. Do we judge a movie by how good the soundtrack is? Hell no, that doesn't make sense since it's the VISUAL PERFORMANCE that matters. Do we judge games primarily by how good the GRAPHICS are? Yes we do. In a medium where graphics should take a backseat to interactivity, the majority of us have been trained like Pavlov's dogs to salivate at graphics and put gameplay in the backseat. Case in point: The whole MGS4 "unveiling" (or the whole PS3 unvieling for that matter). Like little trained monkies we jumped up and down at these graphics and claimed that "The next generation is here!" That's stupid. I'm stupid. We're all stupid. We've all been duped. Now most of us are all but ready to write-off a console that could be just what this stale fucking industry needs just because it doesn't meet our bastardized benchmark of what constitutes a "next generation" console, namely better graphics. We're a bunch of marketing tools for lazy developers who'd rather get rich by just improving visuals, animation and physics while giving us the same gameplay experience as the Playstation.

That's like McDonalds adding one more piece of bread to the Bic Mac and calling it the "Next Generation of Burgers." Then they brainwash consumers into believing that a real next generation burger is taller than the rest. No matter that it tastes the fucking same as the regular Big Mac...it just looks better. That's the way the game industry has trained us. We now believe that next generation games are games that primarily LOOK BETTER than previous games. The evidence is that companies like Sony get away with showing reels and reels of game movie footage (whether or not they are real-time or not is moot) and we get excited as if graphics are the foremost benchmark of a next generation console. It's a fucking joke and this thread proves it.

But then again, it's called VIDEO games. So I guess the visual aspect of it all does play an important part. But should it be more important than the interactive aspect. It is called video GAMES, you know GAMES that are played on a video screen. However, it seems that Sony/MS main aim is to make game VIDEOS.

So I guess this is what seperates the next generation of consoles. We have Nintendo with it's VIDEO GAME machine and Sony and MS with their GAME VIDEO machines. Let's just agree to create that distinction so that we don't confuse ourselves.

I haven't been this emotional over a speech since...

"Troopers! I have just received new orders. Our superiors say the war is cancelled, and we can all go home. Bison is getting paid off for his crimes, and our friends will have died here... will have died for nothing. But... we can all go home. Meanwhile, ideals like these - freedom, and justice - they get packed up. But... we can all go home. Well... I'm not going home. I'm gonna get on my boat, and I'm going up-river, and I'm going to kick that son-of-a-bitch Bison's ass so HARD... that the next Bison wanna-be is gonna feel it. Now who wants to go home... and who wants to go with ME! "

*cries*
 
Xellotah said:
No I think you got his post all wrong, it was a rhetorical question.. He's saying Nintendo is doomed, and he is listing his reasons why.

You must've missed this part

"If I were Nintendo, I'd just wait for the inevitable industry crash to hit and then revitalize it."

BlueTsunami said:
I'm actually kind of annoyed that "Next Gen" is only considered to be a Graphics upgrade. Theres WAY much more to all this than just a new GPU.

Sure it should be, but lets not pretend that it shouldn't play a role in games. Something that looks good is part of life, whether it be your car or house. You just simply want something that looks nice and there's nothing wrong with that. Arsynic brought up movies being based on graphics (or looks), but if Star Wars didn't have all the fancy effects it had back when it came out, would it had been as succesful? If Titanic didn't have the massive budget to have all the fancy sets and effects would it have been the most succesful movie ever? There's obviously more that goes into each of their success, but there's no denying that how they looked played a major role in it.
 

Arsynic

Banned
SolidSnakex said:
The new Tony Hawk just bombed because people are sick of the shit, and its just become more and more broken and repetitive. Madden sales well because football is the biggest sport in the US and its the only viable franchise. But lets not pretend Nintendo's innocent in this whole milking scheme, not when they've got the Mario Party franchise shooting out every year. IGN said they could've used the review for Mario Party 6 with Mario Party 7 and no one would've known better.
Tony Hawk symbolizes a group of games. The clones. The cookie-cutter games.
Uggh, another "the industry is doomed without a Revolution" bit. Haven't people learned from spouting this shit generation after generation while the industry continues to get bigger?
You just admitted that people are getting sick of Tony Hawk. What will happen when they get sick of Madden (no competition), MGS, and Halo and all their clones? Face it, the industry will crash when there are nothing but big franchises and their clones. We're getting to that point. Smaller devs are closing their doors and more and more innovative projects are being cancelled due to being risky and being replaced by cookie-cutter or licensed games. Look at Dave Perry and Shiny for example. He used to push the envelope, but due to the state of the industry, he's confined to doing licensed crap like The Matrix to stay in business. Look at the developer of BG&E. They had to do Peter Jackson's King Kong to stay in business.
 
Arsynic said:
I could care less. Face it, few next gen developers will create original content for the Revolution anyways. If they do sign on to the Rev, they will saturate it with ugly shovelware. Maybe Nintendo doesn't care. They're trying to take the industry in a new direction--perhaps the right direction.

Developers who care primarily about making lots of money should stick with the Xbox 360 or the Revolution. Developers who care primarily about moving this industry forward will develop innovative new titles for the Revolution. Sadly, those developers are too few and far between.

If the Revolution fails, it's because gamers and the industry as a whole is content in its stagnation. We want Metal Gear Solid with better graphics and animation and a shinier version of Halo. Soon, that's all the industry will be: Metal Gear, Halo and Tony Hawk clones. Soon people will get tired of the same old shit and when there are no alternatives...well, you know the rest.

Is the industry ready for Revolution? Tony Hawk sales say no. Personally, I don't think so. I'm already sold, but then again, I don't base my console purchases on the size of the library or the latest NPD sales charts.

I'm still going to get the console. I can't pass up Smash Bros (online) and Metroid Prime 3.
 

Scotch

Member
Arsynic said:
If the Revolution fails, it's because gamers and the industry as a whole is content in its stagnation. We want Metal Gear Solid with better graphics and animation and a shinier version of Halo. Soon, that's all the industry will be: Metal Gear, Halo and Tony Hawk clones. Soon people will get tired of the same old shit and when there are no alternatives...well, you know the rest.
While I agree to some extent you do seem a little too pessimistic. It's not as if the Halo franchise for instance has been around forever. It was only created in the current generation, and there will be a whole lot of other new franchises created in the next, some with great new improvements and innovations.

And besides, were still playing Mario and Zelda after all these years too.
 

Grug

Member
Xellotah said:
Woah.... you have at least 3-5 years to go, before you can say that matey. Those who say they can't afford it, need to remember that you don't have to purchase everything within a 2 month period.

I'm about to become a poor university student doing a double major. Will most likely only be able to afford a Revolution, will try and scrape together the funds for a PS3 as well but it doesnt look good.
 
You all know these questions, but it helps to breifly look at it again to understand why Nintendo is going for the cheap, less powerful system. Takes these questions from the perpective of an avg consumers point of view.

1) Is 5.1 Dolby Digital setup worth $500 or more to your living room? Radios and TV stations are Stereo for the most part.

2) Is the current cost of an HDTV worth $1000 or more to your living room? Especially since there are only a handful of HD boardcasting stations and DVD are still 480p. Majority of the market will not own HD until the end of the next generation life cycle.

3) Is a Xbox360 or PS3 worth $400 - $500, especially if you don't have 5.1 or HDTV to take full advantage of it?

Now, what if you can give these consumers a system that is built for people who don't want to pay extra for all the HD/5.1 setup. I hope you guys start to see that Nintendo is not doomed, but they have a good idea if they can release the system for $149 - $199.

Sure, we want HD, the Best Graphics, the best controller, the best franchise, the best sound, but do we want to pay the highest price for all of them? Only the Hardcore will go for it.
 

BlueTsunami

there is joy in sucking dick
SolidSnakex said:
Sure it should be, but lets not pretend that it shouldn't play a role in games. Something that looks good is part of life, whether it be your car or house. You just simply want something that looks nice and there's nothing wrong with that. Arsynic brought up movies being based on graphics (or looks), but if Star Wars didn't have all the fancy effects it had back when it came out, would it had been as succesful? If Titanic didn't have the massive budget to have all the fancy sets and effects would it have been the most succesful movie ever? There's obviously more that goes into each of their success, but there's no denying that how they looked played a major role in it.

We'll I meant more than graphics as in Physics and AI and other technical aspects that kinda get sidelined to visuals. One of the things i'm looking foward to the most is a leap in animation technology. Possibly physics based animation.

Also, that comment was generally directed to Nintendo fans that think that console generation leaps is all about visuals. Theres other aspects that aren't appearent as graphics that get upgraded to.
 

Mama Smurf

My penis is still intact.
There are always new killer aps. Much as people refuse to believe it, I don't think GTA and Halo will be the main reasons people buy whatever system this gen. They'll still sell well, don't get me wrong, but something else will come along. The 3D GTAs and Halo weren't around in the 32 bit era, Tomb Raider, Goldeneye and Gran Turismo weren't around in the 16 bit era, DKC and Sonic weren't around in the 8 bit era. I don't know what'll do it next, that's the point, but it won't be what we've seen before that's for sure.
 
Arsynic said:
You just admitted that people are getting sick of Tony Hawk. What will happen when they get sick of Madden (no competition), MGS, and Halo and all their clones?

Who says they will? One thing about the multi year development games you mentioned is that often they don't fall into the "we repackaged the same game with a new story, have fun" hole that yearly games do. I can't speak for HALO because Bungie isn't talking about it yet, but atleast in the case of MGS4 the game is going to be based on physics quite a bit. So its not something that would've even been possible this gen. No you don't get a new controller to play it with, but the way the game itself is going to play will be different from any other stealth game.

Arsynic said:
Face it, the industry will crash when there are nothing but big franchises and their clones.

No it won't. Whens that going to be the case though? Each gen there are big games and clones and it gets bigger. This gen you had GTA which despite how much some hate it, was quite innovative in its open ended approach and has inspired alot of other games to take that. Not just from a clone perspective but games outside of the genre style of GTA. You bring up the milking but forget about all the new franchises that do come along each generation. So its not simple "enter new gen, here's all your old favorites...but prettier".
 

Mama Smurf

My penis is still intact.
You know, I really, really hope the power of the next gen consoles is used in the right ways. Game's getting prettier is cool, but things like AI, physics, animation...these are things which really need to be improved before we see how sharp we can make a texture or how many polygons we can pour into a model, IMO.

Problem is, you can't see that stuff on the back of a box. So I imagine most publishers will simply go for the flashy graphics and licences they can slap on the box ("Contains 50% more 50 cent!"), probably selling ten times as much as the game that tried to use the power to create new and better ways to play.

I hate this industry sometimes.
 

elostyle

Never forget! I'm Dumb!
Mama Smurf said:
You know, I really, really hope the power of the next gen consoles is used in the right ways. Game's getting prettier is cool, but things like AI, physics, animation...these are things which really need to be improved before we see how sharp we can make a texture or how many polygons we can pour into a model, IMO.

Problem is, you can't see that stuff on the back of a box. So I imagine most publishers will simply go for the flashy graphics and licences they can slap on the box ("Contains 50% more 50 cent!"), probably selling ten times as much as the game that tried to use the power to create new and better ways to play.

I hate this industry sometimes.
The problem also is that creating engine for new, much more complicated machines to throw the awesome visuals on screen takes more and more time which leaves little time to work on physics etc cause you absolutely have to have the visuals.
In a way, a platform that is weaker on the gfx side might actually be easier to achieve improvements in the AI physics department on (with an equal team size anyways).
 

Goreomedy

Console Market Analyst
Arsynic said:
In a medium where graphics should take a backseat to interactivity, the majority of us have been trained like Pavlov's dogs to salivate at graphics and put gameplay in the backseat. Case in point: The whole MGS4 "unveiling" (or the whole PS3 unvieling for that matter). Like little trained monkies we jumped up and down at these graphics and claimed that "The next generation is here!" That's stupid. I'm stupid. We're all stupid. We've all been duped. Now most of us are all but ready to write-off a console that could be just what this stale fucking industry needs just because it doesn't meet our bastardized benchmark of what constitutes a "next generation" console, namely better graphics. We're a bunch of marketing tools for lazy developers who'd rather get rich by just improving visuals, animation and physics while giving us the same gameplay experience as the Playstation.

Speak for yourself, brother.

I just want to offer this. Visuals and audio are EQUALLY important in delivering a quality game experience. I'll use the original GTA as an example. Crude visuals, overhead perspective, muffled speech and text dialogue, and 8 way directional control. It was a decent, morbid curiosity of a game, but didn't become a smash hit and show the true potential of free-roaming sandbox play until this generation. GTA3 introduced a stylized 3D world, interesting characters, full audio on the radio, analog control, and became a best selling franchise. It was an evolution of control, visuals, and audio that accomplished this.

What's so wrong with demanding a marriage of innovations with Revolution? Why must focus be singular?

I for one look forward to the gameplay innovations promised by Kojima Productions and on display in that MGS4 video we all salivated over. I find it odd you dismissed physics when grading innovation. Destructable environments will introduce both freedom and a new feeling of anxiety on the battlefield. Nuanced, more prceise control comes from better character animation and model interaction. Higher quality visuals will bring dramatics/cinematics to life. I'm not ashamed to use a similiar control scheme from the last generation to manipulate those innovations.

Also, realize Nintendo isn't alone in their simplified control endeavor. I'd argue Eye Toy was inspirational for them. And Eye Toy 2, which could very well be packaged with every PS3, might introduce control methods that mirror those of Revolution.

And Xbox 360, with Live Arcade brings back classic, simple, arcade gameplay, a new delivery system, and online functionality, while also offering a leap in media capability.

I see strides being made on all platforms. The future is bright.
 

Scrow

Still Tagged Accordingly
PhoenixDark said:
"Troopers! I have just received new orders. Our superiors say the war is cancelled, and we can all go home. Bison is getting paid off for his crimes, and our friends will have died here... will have died for nothing. But... we can all go home. Meanwhile, ideals like these - freedom, and justice - they get packed up. But... we can all go home. Well... I'm not going home. I'm gonna get on my boat, and I'm going up-river, and I'm going to kick that son-of-a-bitch Bison's ass so HARD... that the next Bison wanna-be is gonna feel it. Now who wants to go home... and who wants to go with ME! "
i wanna go home...
 

BlueTsunami

there is joy in sucking dick
Ponn01 said:
The end of consoles life cycles? Happens every 5 years or so now.

Exactly. I don't understand how people think that console sales grow at a steady rate up until the transfer to the new generation consoles. Its a weird logic and this is my first console generation leap that i've seen from the internet and I have a feeling that each generations end has articles and people screaming a Video Game Industry crash.
 

elostyle

Never forget! I'm Dumb!
I'll use the original GTA as an example. Crude visuals, overhead perspective, muffled speech and text dialogue, and 8 way directional control. It was a decent, morbid curiosity of a game, but didn't become a smash hit and show the true potential of free-roaming sandbox play until this generation.
Well the shift to PS2 from PS1 allowed it to be 3D which has different gameplay too. I don't think upping the poly count and texture resolutions on characters and cars and denser traffic is going to make a difference quite as substancial as that. Part of the argument is that gfx has reached sort of a saturation point with diminishing returns. That was certainly not even vaguely the case after the PSX (god was it ugly).
 

Shaheed79

dabbled in the jelly
Arsynic said:
I think Ninty should keep the "Revolution" name. I mean, a next generation console with last generation technology...that's Revolutionary indeed. </sarcasm>

In an industry where Tony Hawk and Madden (the bastion of all that is wrong with this industry) still sell millions of copies, original games will fall by the wayside. Nintendo will learn this the hard way. Nintendo's vision is too good for the industry as it stands now. If I were Nintendo, I'd just wait for the inevitable industry crash to hit and then revitalize it.

This industry works like a forest. The big trees form a canopy over the forest that doesn't allow light to pass through and nurture the smaller foilage that the animals feed on. So they die. So the forest floor is left with dry, dead foilage that's no good for anyone. Then a lighting storm comes, strikes a tree and the whole forest burns down. This revitalizes the forest and allows for new growth. The foilage comes back, the animals feast and all is good until the trees get too large again and the whole cycle starts again.

We have a few big trees like EA, Ubi Soft, Activision, Square-Enix, Namco, Konami, et. al. that steal all of the sunlight from the smaller developers who make the most revolutionary stuff. However, if it's not Tony Hawk or Madden, it gets no advertising dollars and therefore no exposure and stays in the niche. However, the industry needs these new ideas to survive. However, these smaller devs are choked out and either close their doors or get on the cookie-cutter-shit bandwagon. Then the industry gets dry and stale and eventually collapses. That's going to happen soon, I don't know when, but soon. People are going to get sick of playing the same old shit over and over again.

Maybe Nintendo realizes this and Revolution could possibly ride out the eventual collapse of the industry and take it in a new direction. Fuck the establishment. Perhaps we're all dead fucking wrong. Perhaps it has nothing to do with better visuals, better sound or better physics. Perhaps it has everything to do with game mechanics and ideas. Perhaps its the way we think about games that need to change. Nintendo's vision is that the next generation has little to do with having better graphics. However, that's how our jaded asses have been programmed to think over the years. Shit, if a console doesn't have better graphics, better sound, and better physics then it's not "next gen" in our view. However, the shit that we fail to realize is that the thing that seperates games from music and movies is that we "PLAY" them. It's the interaction that distinguishes games from the other mediums. So why has graphics become the benchmark in a medium where GAMEPLAY is the unique identifier? Who knows. Graphics should be the benchmark for movies and sound should be a benchmark for music. How backwards have we become?

Do we judge a music album based on the music video? Hell no, that doesn't make sense since it's the SOUND that matters. Do we judge a movie by how good the soundtrack is? Hell no, that doesn't make sense since it's the VISUAL PERFORMANCE that matters. Do we judge games primarily by how good the GRAPHICS are? Yes we do. In a medium where graphics should take a backseat to interactivity, the majority of us have been trained like Pavlov's dogs to salivate at graphics and put gameplay in the backseat. Case in point: The whole MGS4 "unveiling" (or the whole PS3 unvieling for that matter). Like little trained monkies we jumped up and down at these graphics and claimed that "The next generation is here!" That's stupid. I'm stupid. We're all stupid. We've all been duped. Now most of us are all but ready to write-off a console that could be just what this stale fucking industry needs just because it doesn't meet our bastardized benchmark of what constitutes a "next generation" console, namely better graphics. We're a bunch of marketing tools for lazy developers who'd rather get rich by just improving visuals, animation and physics while giving us the same gameplay experience as the Playstation.

That's like McDonalds adding one more piece of bread to the Bic Mac and calling it the "Next Generation of Burgers." Then they brainwash consumers into believing that a real next generation burger is taller than the rest. No matter that it tastes the fucking same as the regular Big Mac...it just looks better. That's the way the game industry has trained us. We now believe that next generation games are games that primarily LOOK BETTER than previous games. The evidence is that companies like Sony get away with showing reels and reels of game movie footage (whether or not they are real-time or not is moot) and we get excited as if graphics are the foremost benchmark of a next generation console. It's a fucking joke and this thread proves it.

But then again, it's called VIDEO games. So I guess the visual aspect of it all does play an important part. But should it be more important than the interactive aspect. It is called video GAMES, you know GAMES that are played on a video screen. However, it seems that Sony/MS main aim is to make game VIDEOS.

So I guess this is what seperates the next generation of consoles. We have Nintendo with it's VIDEO GAME machine and Sony and MS with their GAME VIDEO machines. Let's just agree to create that distinction so that we don't confuse ourselves.

Wow. I didn't think anyone here was capable of seeing the big picture. Kudos
 

Ponn

Banned
BlueTsunami said:
Exactly. I don't understand how people think that console sales grow at a steady rate up until the transfer to the new generation consoles. Its a weird logic and this is my first console generation leap that i've seen from the internet and I have a feeling that each generations end has articles and people screaming a Video Game Industry crash.

That and it doesn't help much when MS and Nintendo all but abandon their home consoles except for a few sparse ones here and there. At least MS had an excuse with the 360.
 

Goreomedy

Console Market Analyst
elostyle said:
Well the shift to PS2 from PS1 allowed it to be 3D which has different gameplay too. I don't think upping the poly count and texture resolutions on characters and cars and denser traffic is going to make a difference quite as substancial as that. Part of the argument is that gfx has reached sort of a saturation point with diminishing returns. That was certainly not even vaguely the case after the PSX (god was it ugly).

If you believe denser traffic and higher polygon characters are all Rockstar can offer in GTA Next, thank God you're not part of their talent pool.
 

marc^o^

Nintendo's Pro Bono PR Firm
Ponn01 said:
The end of consoles life cycles? Happens every 5 years or so now.
In my books this industry has posted growth over the last decade. Yet develoment studios are closing at a higher rate than new ones are emerging. And sequels have become a disappointing trend.
 

BlueTsunami

there is joy in sucking dick
Goreomedy said:
If you believe denser traffic and higher polygon characters are all Rockstar can offer in GTA Next, thank God you're not part of their talent pool.

Yep, a good gauge of what GTA will be like is Saints Row (a complete ripoff of GTA might I add). But you will get better explosions, alot of incorported physics and god knows what else.
 

jarosh

Member
Arsynic said:
I think Ninty should keep the "Revolution" name. I mean, a next generation console with last generation technology...that's Revolutionary indeed. </sarcasm>

In an industry where Tony Hawk and Madden (the bastion of all that is wrong with this industry) still sell millions of copies, original games will fall by the wayside. Nintendo will learn this the hard way. Nintendo's vision is too good for the industry as it stands now. If I were Nintendo, I'd just wait for the inevitable industry crash to hit and then revitalize it.

This industry works like a forest. The big trees form a canopy over the forest that doesn't allow light to pass through and nurture the smaller foilage that the animals feed on. So they die. So the forest floor is left with dry, dead foilage that's no good for anyone. Then a lighting storm comes, strikes a tree and the whole forest burns down. This revitalizes the forest and allows for new growth. The foilage comes back, the animals feast and all is good until the trees get too large again and the whole cycle starts again.

We have a few big trees like EA, Ubi Soft, Activision, Square-Enix, Namco, Konami, et. al. that steal all of the sunlight from the smaller developers who make the most revolutionary stuff. However, if it's not Tony Hawk or Madden, it gets no advertising dollars and therefore no exposure and stays in the niche. However, the industry needs these new ideas to survive. However, these smaller devs are choked out and either close their doors or get on the cookie-cutter-shit bandwagon. Then the industry gets dry and stale and eventually collapses. That's going to happen soon, I don't know when, but soon. People are going to get sick of playing the same old shit over and over again.

Maybe Nintendo realizes this and Revolution could possibly ride out the eventual collapse of the industry and take it in a new direction. Fuck the establishment. Perhaps we're all dead fucking wrong. Perhaps it has nothing to do with better visuals, better sound or better physics. Perhaps it has everything to do with game mechanics and ideas. Perhaps its the way we think about games that need to change. Nintendo's vision is that the next generation has little to do with having better graphics. However, that's how our jaded asses have been programmed to think over the years. Shit, if a console doesn't have better graphics, better sound, and better physics then it's not "next gen" in our view. However, the shit that we fail to realize is that the thing that seperates games from music and movies is that we "PLAY" them. It's the interaction that distinguishes games from the other mediums. So why has graphics become the benchmark in a medium where GAMEPLAY is the unique identifier? Who knows. Graphics should be the benchmark for movies and sound should be a benchmark for music. How backwards have we become?

Do we judge a music album based on the music video? Hell no, that doesn't make sense since it's the SOUND that matters. Do we judge a movie by how good the soundtrack is? Hell no, that doesn't make sense since it's the VISUAL PERFORMANCE that matters. Do we judge games primarily by how good the GRAPHICS are? Yes we do. In a medium where graphics should take a backseat to interactivity, the majority of us have been trained like Pavlov's dogs to salivate at graphics and put gameplay in the backseat. Case in point: The whole MGS4 "unveiling" (or the whole PS3 unvieling for that matter). Like little trained monkies we jumped up and down at these graphics and claimed that "The next generation is here!" That's stupid. I'm stupid. We're all stupid. We've all been duped. Now most of us are all but ready to write-off a console that could be just what this stale fucking industry needs just because it doesn't meet our bastardized benchmark of what constitutes a "next generation" console, namely better graphics. We're a bunch of marketing tools for lazy developers who'd rather get rich by just improving visuals, animation and physics while giving us the same gameplay experience as the Playstation.

That's like McDonalds adding one more piece of bread to the Bic Mac and calling it the "Next Generation of Burgers." Then they brainwash consumers into believing that a real next generation burger is taller than the rest. No matter that it tastes the fucking same as the regular Big Mac...it just looks better. That's the way the game industry has trained us. We now believe that next generation games are games that primarily LOOK BETTER than previous games. The evidence is that companies like Sony get away with showing reels and reels of game movie footage (whether or not they are real-time or not is moot) and we get excited as if graphics are the foremost benchmark of a next generation console. It's a fucking joke and this thread proves it.

But then again, it's called VIDEO games. So I guess the visual aspect of it all does play an important part. But should it be more important than the interactive aspect. It is called video GAMES, you know GAMES that are played on a video screen. However, it seems that Sony/MS main aim is to make game VIDEOS.

So I guess this is what seperates the next generation of consoles. We have Nintendo with it's VIDEO GAME machine and Sony and MS with their GAME VIDEO machines. Let's just agree to create that distinction so that we don't confuse ourselves.

i agree with most of your conclusions but i disagree strongly with many of the points you make about movies and music. this for example is ridiculous:

Arsynic said:
Graphics should be the benchmark for movies and sound should be a benchmark for music.

Do we judge a music album based on the music video? Hell no, that doesn't make sense since it's the SOUND that matters. Do we judge a movie by how good the soundtrack is? Hell no, that doesn't make sense since it's the VISUAL PERFORMANCE that matters.

THIS my friend is just as superficial as judging games based on graphics. graphics should be the benchmark for movies? wtf? you're suggesting that the better a movie looks, the better it is? the soundtrack, by the way, can be one of the most important parts of a movie, ask mr. kubrick.

sound should be the benchmark of music? what does this mean? the quality of the sound or what? you're trying to draw conclusions here by generalising and extracting what you think is the essence of a certain form of expression and/or art and then comparing it to games. but your assumption that movies are about the visuals and music is about the (quality?) of sound is deeply flawed.
 
elostyle said:
Well the shift to PS2 from PS1 allowed it to be 3D which has different gameplay too. I don't think upping the poly count and texture resolutions on characters and cars and denser traffic is going to make a difference quite as substancial as that. Part of the argument is that gfx has reached sort of a saturation point with diminishing returns. That was certainly not even vaguely the case after the PSX (god was it ugly).

Once again, I think next gen will turn out to be alot about physics which will add a big jump over current games once developers really start digging into it. Just look at the Motorstorm demo for example.
 

Dracos

Member
Arsynic said:
I think Ninty should keep the "Revolution" name. I mean, a next generation console with last generation technology...that's Revolutionary indeed. </sarcasm>

In an industry where Tony Hawk and Madden (the bastion of all that is wrong with this industry) still sell millions of copies, original games will fall by the wayside. Nintendo will learn this the hard way. Nintendo's vision is too good for the industry as it stands now. If I were Nintendo, I'd just wait for the inevitable industry crash to hit and then revitalize it.

This industry works like a forest. The big trees form a canopy over the forest that doesn't allow light to pass through and nurture the smaller foilage that the animals feed on. So they die. So the forest floor is left with dry, dead foilage that's no good for anyone. Then a lighting storm comes, strikes a tree and the whole forest burns down. This revitalizes the forest and allows for new growth. The foilage comes back, the animals feast and all is good until the trees get too large again and the whole cycle starts again.

We have a few big trees like EA, Ubi Soft, Activision, Square-Enix, Namco, Konami, et. al. that steal all of the sunlight from the smaller developers who make the most revolutionary stuff. However, if it's not Tony Hawk or Madden, it gets no advertising dollars and therefore no exposure and stays in the niche. However, the industry needs these new ideas to survive. However, these smaller devs are choked out and either close their doors or get on the cookie-cutter-shit bandwagon. Then the industry gets dry and stale and eventually collapses. That's going to happen soon, I don't know when, but soon. People are going to get sick of playing the same old shit over and over again.

Maybe Nintendo realizes this and Revolution could possibly ride out the eventual collapse of the industry and take it in a new direction. Fuck the establishment. Perhaps we're all dead fucking wrong. Perhaps it has nothing to do with better visuals, better sound or better physics. Perhaps it has everything to do with game mechanics and ideas. Perhaps its the way we think about games that need to change. Nintendo's vision is that the next generation has little to do with having better graphics. However, that's how our jaded asses have been programmed to think over the years. Shit, if a console doesn't have better graphics, better sound, and better physics then it's not "next gen" in our view. However, the shit that we fail to realize is that the thing that seperates games from music and movies is that we "PLAY" them. It's the interaction that distinguishes games from the other mediums. So why has graphics become the benchmark in a medium where GAMEPLAY is the unique identifier? Who knows. Graphics should be the benchmark for movies and sound should be a benchmark for music. How backwards have we become?

Do we judge a music album based on the music video? Hell no, that doesn't make sense since it's the SOUND that matters. Do we judge a movie by how good the soundtrack is? Hell no, that doesn't make sense since it's the VISUAL PERFORMANCE that matters. Do we judge games primarily by how good the GRAPHICS are? Yes we do. In a medium where graphics should take a backseat to interactivity, the majority of us have been trained like Pavlov's dogs to salivate at graphics and put gameplay in the backseat. Case in point: The whole MGS4 "unveiling" (or the whole PS3 unvieling for that matter). Like little trained monkies we jumped up and down at these graphics and claimed that "The next generation is here!" That's stupid. I'm stupid. We're all stupid. We've all been duped. Now most of us are all but ready to write-off a console that could be just what this stale fucking industry needs just because it doesn't meet our bastardized benchmark of what constitutes a "next generation" console, namely better graphics. We're a bunch of marketing tools for lazy developers who'd rather get rich by just improving visuals, animation and physics while giving us the same gameplay experience as the Playstation.

That's like McDonalds adding one more piece of bread to the Bic Mac and calling it the "Next Generation of Burgers." Then they brainwash consumers into believing that a real next generation burger is taller than the rest. No matter that it tastes the fucking same as the regular Big Mac...it just looks better. That's the way the game industry has trained us. We now believe that next generation games are games that primarily LOOK BETTER than previous games. The evidence is that companies like Sony get away with showing reels and reels of game movie footage (whether or not they are real-time or not is moot) and we get excited as if graphics are the foremost benchmark of a next generation console. It's a fucking joke and this thread proves it.

But then again, it's called VIDEO games. So I guess the visual aspect of it all does play an important part. But should it be more important than the interactive aspect. It is called video GAMES, you know GAMES that are played on a video screen. However, it seems that Sony/MS main aim is to make game VIDEOS.

So I guess this is what seperates the next generation of consoles. We have Nintendo with it's VIDEO GAME machine and Sony and MS with their GAME VIDEO machines. Let's just agree to create that distinction so that we don't confuse ourselves.

You deserve praise for that well written post. Best one I've seen in years. The only thing I can say is that unfortunately Nintendo cannot wait until the crash. This is their only business. Thankfully they are extremely profitible, so they have the ability to continue to try and make things "better" even if their concepts aren't fully appreciated. But the DS was a worthy gamble, and so might the Revolution be. A paradigm shift can happen at any time. It might just be timing. But you've got to keep throwing your hook out there to catch the fish.
 

Ponn

Banned
marc^o^ said:
In my books this industry has posted growth over the last decade. Yet develoment studios are closing at a higher rate than new ones are emerging. And sequels have become a disappointing trend.

Yea, don't know what this has to do with what you posted before unless you are just trying to sweep that away and move on. That's fine.

In my book I consider closing or merging of developers as a good thing. A trend towards less shovelware and crap being put out. Oh yea we will still see it, but compare it to say the PSone and early PStwo days. Sequels of titles I love I don't mind either. Basically this is just an argument of opinions which wouldn't go anywhere
 

Shaheed79

dabbled in the jelly
Goreomedy said:
Speak for yourself, brother.

I just want to offer this. Visuals and audio are EQUALLY important in delivering a quality game experience. I'll use the original GTA as an example. Crude visuals, overhead perspective, muffled speech and text dialogue, and 8 way directional control. It was a decent, morbid curiosity of a game, but didn't become a smash hit and show the true potential of free-roaming sandbox play until this generation. GTA3 introduced a stylized 3D world, interesting characters, full audio on the radio, analog control, and became a best selling franchise. It was an evolution of control, visuals, and audio that accomplished this.

What's so wrong with demanding a marriage of innovations with Revolution? Why must focus be singular?

That is a great example but the graphical and sound difference between GTA1 to GTA3 is not equivalent to the difference between Revolution and 360 games. Using past examples is a little decieving though because believe it or not we really are at more minimal level of saturation of what we can realistically do with graphics without the development budget resembling that of a Hollywood Summer blockbuster. Every game cannot look like Gears of War because that would bankrupt the industry rather quickly. 80% of the games released next-gen will look equivalent to Kameo and Condemed or even Tony Hawk rather than MGS3 or the FFVII demo. In reality developers can only make games look so good on average without taking a decent financial hit and if that average is near the Revolutions higher output then the difference should be neglegible.

I for one look forward to the gameplay innovations promised by Kojima Productions and on display in that MGS4 video we all salivated over. I find it odd you dismissed physics when grading innovation. Destructable environments will introduce both freedom and a new feeling of anxiety on the battlefield. Nuanced, more prceise control comes from better character animation and model interaction. Higher quality visuals will bring dramatics/cinematics to life. I'm not ashamed to use a similiar control scheme from the last generation to manipulate those innovations.

I agree that techonology should never limit gameplay functions but most all of those examples can be accomplished on the Xbox this generation and has more to do with the skill of the developer than raw horsepower. I can't think of a single 360 game which displays better AI than Halo did or more destructible enviroments than Mecernaries did or better animation than RE4 did. Maybe I'm not looking hard enough.
 

marc^o^

Nintendo's Pro Bono PR Firm
Ponn01 said:
Yea, don't know what this has to do with what you posted before unless you are just trying to sweep that away and move on. That's fine.
Duh?
Ponn01 said:
In my book I consider closing or merging of developers as a good thing.
You're just...wrong.
 

elostyle

Never forget! I'm Dumb!
Ponn01 said:
That and it doesn't help much when MS and Nintendo all but abandon their home consoles except for a few sparse ones here and there. At least MS had an excuse with the 360.
That's interesting actually, the industry didn't perform as well partially because nintendo pulled zelda. :)

Once again, I think next gen will turn out to be alot about physics which will add a big jump over current games once developers really start digging into it. Just look at the Motorstorm demo for example.
Well, 360 is here and apparently we'll have to wait at the very least a bit longer for this. Granted we had to wait for GTA3 to hit on the PS2, too.
 

Xellotah

Member
Shaheed79 said:
I agree that techonology should never limit gameplay functions but most all of those examples can be accomplished on the Xbox this generation and has more to do with the skill of the developer than raw horsepower. I can't think of a single 360 game which displays better AI than Halo did or more destructible enviroments than Mecernaries did or better animation than RE4 did. Maybe I'm not looking hard enough.

Well we are only at the beginning of the generation. Their will likley be better physics to come in later in the next generation, though they are likely to be limited to a handful of games. The thing is can you sell physics as easily as you can sell shiny graphics.
 

Goreomedy

Console Market Analyst
Shaheed79 said:
80% of the games released next-gen will look equivalent to Kameo and Condemed or even Tony Hawk rather than MGS3 or the FFVII demo. In reality developers can only make games look so good on average without taking a decent financial hit and if that average is near the Revolutions higher output then the difference should be neglegible.

I think you are highly underestimating the potential of Xbox 360, PS3, and their committed developers. Do I have permission to quote the "neglegible difference" in output after we actually see something on Revolution? :D
 

Ponn

Banned
elostyle said:
That's interesting actually, the industry didn't perform as well partially because nintendo pulled zelda. :)

To an extent, I never said partially. Common sense tells you if you don't put out games for people to buy during christmas then obviously you are not going to sell anything. So yea, Zelda would have helped sales, and Stubbs alone cannot carry the Xbox.
 

Nightbringer

Don´t hit me for my bad english plase
In the year 1999 Sony showned Playstation2 with a technical specs and Nintendo announced Project Dolphin with better specs than PS2.

Playstation2 was an equivalent of a PentiumIII with a DirectX 6.0 Videocard (RivaTNT2, Voodoo3, Matrox G400...) but with a geometry power 8 times superior.

Gamecube appeared in the market in the year 2001 with a GPU that has the power of a GeForce2 Ultra when the GeForce3 was on the PC market.

But a lot of Nintendo ******s are doing stupid comparisions between RE4 GCN and RE4 PS2 and when you shown them games like Conker, FarCry Instincts, Ninja Gaiden, Riddick, Dead or Alive Ultimate and other they wath into another side and they type at the same time in the forums "GCN and Xbox are equaled in power" but you cannot show to them the truth because they will watch to another place.

Now Nintendo has owned their most stupid fans, but stop, Nintendo has done it in the last E3 press conference. A press conference for the press and the analyst and never for the megatonian fans of Nintendo.

Please ******s, stop be ******s of anything material and start to be only normal players that enjoy videogames, Nintendo only want to sell their products and they have seen that you are the minority here and the casual gamers and the non-gamers are more people than you.
 

Shaheed79

dabbled in the jelly
Xellotah said:
Well we are only at the beginning of the generation. Their will likley be better physics to come in later in the next generation, though they are likely to be limited to a handful of games. The thing is can you sell physics as easily as you can sell shiny graphics.

I see your point. But next-gen consoles can't just be all about shinier graphics otherwise a lot of gamers will become very jaded before the next generation even comes to an end. The feeling of "I've played that before a dozen times already" will overwhelm a nice amount of gamers. Maybe not all gamers will be overcome by this feeling but it will be enough to strike a blow into the sales of Halo 4 and GTA 7.
 

Shaheed79

dabbled in the jelly
Goreomedy said:
I think you are highly underestimating the potential of Xbox 360, PS3, and their committed developers. Do I have permission to quote the "neglegible difference" in output after we actually see something on Revolution? :D

Sure go ahead. But remember I'm comparing the difference between the average 360 game with a moderate budget and Revolution not a game that took 10 Million + to develop. MGS3 is not respresenative of what we will see graphically on the PS3 from a low/medium budget game.
 

monkeyrun

Member
Shaheed79 said:
I agree that techonology should never limit gameplay functions but most all of those examples can be accomplished on the Xbox this generation and has more to do with the skill of the developer than raw horsepower. I can't think of a single 360 game which displays better AI than Halo did or more destructible enviroments than Mecernaries did or better animation than RE4 did. Maybe I'm not looking hard enough.
well... I blame it on Rare,
 

elostyle

Never forget! I'm Dumb!
Nightbringer said:
In the year 1999 Sony showned Playstation2 with a technical specs and Nintendo announced Project Dolphin with better specs than PS2.

Playstation2 was an equivalent of a PentiumIII with a DirectX 6.0 Videocard (RivaTNT2, Voodoo3, Matrox G400...) but with a geometry power 8 times superior.

Gamecube appeared in the market in the year 2001 with a GPU that has the power of a GeForce2 Ultra when the GeForce3 was on the PC market.

But a lot of Nintendo ******s are doing stupid comparisions between RE4 GCN and RE4 PS2 and when you shown them games like Conker, FarCry Instincts, Ninja Gaiden, Riddick, Dead or Alive Ultimate and other they wath into another side and they type at the same time in the forums "GCN and Xbox are equaled in power" but you cannot show to them the truth because they will watch to another place.

Now Nintendo has owned their most stupid fans, but stop, Nintendo has done it in the last E3 press conference. A press conference for the press and the analyst and never for the megatonian fans of Nintendo.

Please ******s, stop be ******s of anything material and start to be only normal players that enjoy videogames, Nintendo only want to sell their products and they have seen that you are the minority here and the casual gamers and the non-gamers are more people than you.
what
 
Since all we have is inaccurate main memory amount, what is there to go on? No hints on whether or not the dual core proceesor is true. No info on the GPU, not even a polygon output estimate.

This all considering the GC centric devkits has been mentioned to be more API focused then actual hardware. The comment by the developer about the Revolution being a souped up Xbox, comes off as more of a memory complaint then a actual CPU or GPU power comparison.

Developers still don't have much to leak, I find it interesting that the dual-core processor rumor wasn't addressed by Matt. Unless this article had already been completed before the rumor hit the net. Hopefully Matt will respond with a comment from a developer about the rumor.

Oh, I almost forgot about the 12gig proprietary disc format.
 

Shaheed79

dabbled in the jelly
monkeyrun said:
well... I blame it on Rare,
Exactly my point. At this stage in the growth of the VG industry things like great AI, smooth animation, destructible enviroments and most other gameplay innovations are up to the abilities and vision of the developer not the power of the hardware. Theoretically more powerful hardware is suppose to make it easier for them to accomplish those cool gameplay ideas but that might not be the case at all. On average I don't think we will see next-gen games with the productions values of current gen games like MGS3, RE4 and Halo.

The ratio of next-gen games that can compare to those level games will be about the same as this generation. I actually hope I am wrong and we see developers striving more towards creating a true next-gen experience in all of the different categories of game design not just graphical fidelity but the better part of me tells me to not to give them that much credit. Very few development houses will take that extra step to create those games that blow us away in everything involved in the foundation of a game not just sharper visuals.
 
Top Bottom